| 0 |
Subject: Poli league Rule Change Thread 2023
Posted by: Biliruben
- [592462710] Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 12:28
I propose to cut the maximum innings pitched from 1400 to 1200 to handicap those evil streamers and rebalance to league so that folks who are not fiddling every day can compete.
Feel free to discuss or just vote aye or nay. |
| 1 | taxman
ID: 592122118
Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 13:11
|
The G-20 league has a minimum of 1200 required IP, subjecting those who fall short to draft penalties in following year.
Poli only has 14 managers or 70% of the managers vying for IP. Generally, lower number of IP favors stud SP and higher number levels the field. That said, I favor a lower cap, but more in the 1300 - 1350 range.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 28128412
Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 13:20
|
To put it in perspective: Last year 8 teams had more than 1200 IP (6 did not).
1419.2
1410.2
1369.0
1314.2
1256.2
1247.0
1234.0
1220.0
1189.0
1158.0
1155.1
1154.2
1126.0
942.0
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 28128412
Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 13:23
|
Note that this means that only 2 teams hit the cap last year.
The season is 187 days long, fwiw.
I agree with shortening the IP max and am open to a new number. It will force better pitching decisions, I think.
|
| 4 | Bean
ID: 12552510
Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 14:22
|
If offering this as a solution perhaps you should have a multiple choice question. Perhaps something like this:
A) No change 1400 IP
B) Add a roster slot, leave at 1400 IP
C) 1350 IP
D) 1300 IP
E) 1250 IP
F) 1200 IP
You should set a deadline for voting as well, and specify what year this will take affect.
If you get 8 votes for a specific choice, then that one wins. However if no choice gets 8 votes, but choices C through F combine for 8 votes then obviously the majority favors a reduction of IP. Just start from 1200 IP add 1250 IP then 1300 IP then 1350 IP until you get 8 votes and that is the winner. So, for example, 1200= 2 votes; 1250=3 votes; 1300= 4 votes then vote for 1300 passes getting 9 votes for 1300 or less.
|
| 5 | Bean
ID: 12552510
Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 14:29
|
From the Constitution:
Rule Changes
In order for a new rule or rule change to pass, we need a majority the league (not voters) to vote yes. This is currently 8 of 14. The manager who proposes the rule should make a reasonable effort to publicize that there is a vote going on. If a majority do not vote for the proposal within a week, the proposal fails.
|
| 6 | Nerveclinic
ID: 56239234
Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 22:55
|
Against since I am one of the managers that goes all out streaming at the end of the year.
Why punish teams doing the work? It can backfire if you pick the wrong pitchers.
|
| 7 | Biliruben
ID: 211131314
Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 11:46
|
1400 to 1350? Really? That will be some seriously convoluted voting and tallying for very little impact to the game. 1200 was the compromise in my mind. Subtract out all the streamed innings out and average innings per team is still likely well below that 1200.
I was hoping to provide some path to victory for those unwilling or able to stream pitchers.
More fun. More competition, less work, less tanking-by-neglect. Less nasty glares from Bean.
|
| 8 | Bean
ID: 12552510
Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 12:37
|
Bili, just trying to help you move forward. Create your own multiple choice answers if mine don't do the trick for you.
Just trying to give you a format to actually reach a voted on decision. Your suggestion for making such a radical move (200 IP) may not meet with the acceptance you are looking for, be prepared to compromise if you want change.
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 28128412
Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 21:31
|
New rule proposal:
Trades which involve draft picks must have the same number of picks being swapped from any particular draft.
By way of example, if a trade involves a player and a pick from next year's regular season draft, the manager accepting the trade must offer back a pick from the same draft as part of the trade.
Rationale for the rule: Draft picks which are uneven result in drafts which end without teams having full rosters (or, having drafted extra picks). Neither of these are acceptable outcomes.
|
| 10 | Biliruben
ID: 211131314
Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 04:22
|
Aye.
|
| 11 | mailedfoot
ID: 5082825
Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 06:51
|
Aye
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 28128412
Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 07:23
|
Aye
|
| 13 | Joe
ID: 44232289
Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 08:06
|
Aye on the draft pick proposal.
|
| 14 | Bean
ID: 12552510
Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 08:39
|
Aye
|
| 15 | Bean
ID: 12552510
Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 08:41
|
It may get murkier with prospect picks, BTW.
|
| 16 | WG
ID: 89402220
Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 12:24
|
Aye
|
| 17 | taxman
ID: 52312110
Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 01:12
|
Aye
|
| 18 | artofmonk
ID: 162521616
Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 16:47
|
aye
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 28128412
Thu, Apr 13, 2023, 09:45
|
We have 8 yays on the rule change, and no nays. It did not, however, pass within a week.
Like the politician I am, I am going to declare that the sense of the voters is clear and ignore the timeliness of the last vote. Rule passes.
|
| 20 | GO
ID: 288332716
Thu, Apr 13, 2023, 11:01
|
I vote in favor if it helps.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Poli league Rule Change Thread 2023
|